Introduction 19
generated considerable scholarly debate,95 and even leading to an interna-
tional conference on several aspects of the so-called ‘Middle Avar Period’.96
Significant advances have been made in research on the Germanic popula-
tion of the Early Avar period. Merovingian elements in Early Avar material cul-
ture, including weaponry, were first observed in the cemetery of Környe which
was originally dated to the first half of the 6th century (before the arrival of
the Avars at 567/568), interpreted as the burial ground of a military garrison
of mixed ethnicity (Germanic and Kutrigur) related to the nearby Late Roman
fort.97 Both this ethnic interpretation98 and the dating of the site99 became the
subject of an international debate.
The Avar-age continuity of the Gepids is mentioned in written sources,100
and is also visible archaeologically in several ‘Gepid’ cemeteries which were
continuously used in Transylvania well after 567–568, when the Carpathian
Basin became part of the Avar Qaganate.101 The studies of Attila Kiss, however,
transformed this idea of Gepid continuity, since he localised it in a new area:
Transdanubia. He began with studying the archaeological heritage of various
Germanic ethnic groups (Goths, Lombards, Scirii) of Eastern Transdanubia
(former Roman province of Pannonia), and later excavated a remarkable Early
Avar site which contained significant Merovingian elements (two cemeteries
and a settlement) at Kölked–Feketekapu.102
95 For a reaction to Csanád Bálint’s review and of his numismatic arguments: Somogyi 2005,
189–228; Somogyi 2008, 347–393.
96 New comments on the chronology of the Period from Eastern Europe (Gavritukhin
2008, 63–126), from Merovingian archaeology (Martin 2008, 143–174), coin-dated burials
(Zábojník 2008, 301–306) and the changes of the structure of ornamented belts (Szőke
2008a, 175–214), on burial rite (Tomka 2008, 233–264), on the changes in Keszthely cul-
ture (Kiss 2008, 265–278), on the main cemetery of the period (Gyenesdiás) (Müller 2008,
279–300).
97 Salamon – Erdélyi 1971, 70–71.
98 The ethnic question was primarily emphasised by Kurt Horedt (1971, 200–208; Horedt
1985, 164–168).
99 A general summary of the so-called Környe-debate and its affect on the history of research:
Tomka 1973, 227–231. The contemporary comments (Bóna 1971b, 300; Bott 1976, 201–280;
Ambroz 1973, 289–294; Martin 1973, 110–112) emphasised the chronological problems.
100 These sources were discussed by Attila Kiss (1992, 36–38).
101 Continuous Gepidic cemeteries from Transylvania: Kovács 1913; Kovács 1915; Bóna
1978, 123–170; Bóna 1986a, 162–164; Horedt 1985, 164–168; Harhoiu 2001, 110–120; Bârzu –
Harhoiu 2008, 513–578.
102 Attila Kiss was a specialist of the Migration Period and Merovingian archaeology in the
Carpathian Basin. He started his academic career at the Janus Pannonius Museum in Pécs
where he had several opportunities for studying artefacts of Merovingian origin from the